1 - motivation only works when YOU want it to. If you come up to me and say "If you do my homework I'll give you a cookie," and I don't want a cookie, I most likely will not do your homework for you. (not that I'd do it if I wanted a cookie... but I think you get what I mean...)
2 - motivation only works so far. After a certain point, no matter what motivation you give to somebody, they will not be able to reach a higher goal or accomplish more than they already have. If you are taking AP Calc, for instance, and you have an 82% (a C) and decide that you want a B (and 85%) you would have to study more each night and pay complete attention in class. However, once that B is achieved, if you decide you want an A (93%) you would have to study even more and pay more than absolute attention in class, and perhaps not think about any other class you have during your school day. However, let's say you get to that 93% but you decide you want a 99% (because we all make mistakes and 100% is not probable) you will have reached the point at which you find there is nothing else you can do to gain credit (other than extra credit... but that does not technically count as credit for the class anyway...
(posted by Mr. Gingrich) I find his points to be very interesting, and certainly counterintuitive. If you want someone to do something, reward them. If you want a behavior to stop, punish them. Seems simple, and I suppose it works in the short-term. But, using rewards as a motivator has diminishing returns....if you pay someone $5 to take out the trash, they'll never take out the trash again, unless they're paid $5. Then, as the behavior continues, $5 won't bring the same satisfaction, and it will take $10 to encourage the same behavior. I think what he's saying is, for long-term motivation, you need to establish three things: autonomy (being able to make your own decisions), mastery (finding something you want to constantly improve), and purpose (a reason for engaging in the task). Many times, to use your example, homework doesn't fall into any of these categories. (posted by Andrew Martz) I believe that many people are in accordance with the theory mostly developed by John Watson with his famous "Little Albert" experiment that behavior is mased on rewards and punishments. However, I agree more with Martin Seligman's Positive-Psychology views, where behavior is governed by the goal of achieving your full potential and being optimistic. (posted by Sarah Beitzel) Okay, so I agree with Martzy on this one. Partly. While, yes, bahavior is governed by the goal of achieving your full potential and being optomistic, in this video, we are shown how incentives work to boost our motivation. Doing my homework for no credit will most likely result in me not doing it. However, if I am told I will get credit, I will at least make up some answers. Furthermore, if I'm told that I'm being graded for accuracy, rather than compeletion, I will put the most time into it. The grade for accuracy is what is motivating me to do something. (posted by Mr. Gingrich) I agree with Martzy, too. Having read the guys book, that's pretty much his main point---that businesses/business managers still rely on Watson's tactics (carrots and sticks)...and that's out of touch with what REALLY motivates people (which he claims resembles Seligman's theories). Looking at the homework example, I don't think that completing homework falls into any of the categories he talks about in the video, which is why Beitzel's so unmotivated to do it to the very best of her abilities: 1) autonomy--most homework doesn't fit into this category, because the teacher instructs you specifically what to do. 2) mastery--how much does homework really challenge your skills? And how much is rote memorization/repitition? 3) purpose--I think he would argue that there would have to be a higher purpose than just "a good grade." (posted by Sarah Beitzel) Well yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at (homework is just fresh on my mind every day. It is school, after all) (posted by Andrew Martz) I just re-read your second point up top Sarah, and I disagree. As you said, 100% is not probable. That means there is always room for improvement. Just something to think about... (posted by Sarah Beitzel) Yes, but what I'm getting at is that motivation will only work for so long. If I'm staying up until 1 or 2 AM to get problem sets done for Chem (okay, so I'm not up THAT late... but it's getting there)... anyway... uhm.... yeah. If I'm staying up that late and I'm still not getting 100%, the value of that 100% will go down to me, and the fact that I CAN'T seem to reach it will get me down. Now, yeah, I'm not everybody, but I am a mentally stable (well... we [as in my parents and doctors and such... not my multiple personalities] think I am mentally stable...) person. The video even says that the motivation of money only worked for so long. h h h Completely separated from what Andrew, Gingrich and I have been discussing, is the idea that perhaps motivation will never work. "you'll fail if you don't do your homework," or "You can't go out shopping if you don't clean your room," (assuming the person wants to pass and wants to go shopping, of course) will sometimes not work. If the person, perhaps, is too lazy to take care of the condition (homework/cleaning) then they will not get their reward. Thoughts?
(posted by Mr. Gingrich) This ties in with the assignment that I just sent out to the other students. According to "Switch," what we often think of as a people problem (someone being lazy) is often a situation problem (something about the situation is holding the person back). They argue that people, often aren't being lazy or unmotivated, but that theres something about the situation that is causing them to pursue the status quo. There are a lot of different ways to change the situation...all of which are covered in the packets that I gave out...but they can include things like having very specific goals, shrinking the change to more managable chunks, or making an environmental change. One of the examples they use is actually the one of a child having to clean his room. If a parent says "go clean your room" to a child, the child will feel overwhelmed, perhaps intimidated by the seemingly daunting task and time commitment, perhaps confused on where to even begin, and resist the order. One solution the authors give is the "five minute rescue." In this case, this would mean setting an alarm for five minutes, and working on cleaning your room. When the buzzer goes off, you can quit. Suddenly, this five-minute time frame seems much more managable, and the child will be more willing to undertake the task. So, I guess in conclusion--these authors would say that motivation will always work, you just need to find the right keys to jumpstart the change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
what are your thoughts on motivation?
The way I see it is this:
1 - motivation only works when YOU want it to. If you come up to me and say "If you do my homework I'll give you a cookie," and I don't want a cookie, I most likely will not do your homework for you. (not that I'd do it if I wanted a cookie... but I think you get what I mean...)
2 - motivation only works so far. After a certain point, no matter what motivation you give to somebody, they will not be able to reach a higher goal or accomplish more than they already have. If you are taking AP Calc, for instance, and you have an 82% (a C) and decide that you want a B (and 85%) you would have to study more each night and pay complete attention in class. However, once that B is achieved, if you decide you want an A (93%) you would have to study even more and pay more than absolute attention in class, and perhaps not think about any other class you have during your school day. However, let's say you get to that 93% but you decide you want a 99% (because we all make mistakes and 100% is not probable) you will have reached the point at which you find there is nothing else you can do to gain credit (other than extra credit... but that does not technically count as credit for the class anyway...
(posted by Mr. Gingrich) I find his points to be very interesting, and certainly counterintuitive. If you want someone to do something, reward them. If you want a behavior to stop, punish them. Seems simple, and I suppose it works in the short-term. But, using rewards as a motivator has diminishing returns....if you pay someone $5 to take out the trash, they'll never take out the trash again, unless they're paid $5. Then, as the behavior continues, $5 won't bring the same satisfaction, and it will take $10 to encourage the same behavior. I think what he's saying is, for long-term motivation, you need to establish three things: autonomy (being able to make your own decisions), mastery (finding something you want to constantly improve), and purpose (a reason for engaging in the task). Many times, to use your example, homework doesn't fall into any of these categories.
(posted by Andrew Martz) I believe that many people are in accordance with the theory mostly developed by John Watson with his famous "Little Albert" experiment that behavior is mased on rewards and punishments. However, I agree more with Martin Seligman's Positive-Psychology views, where behavior is governed by the goal of achieving your full potential and being optimistic.
(posted by Sarah Beitzel) Okay, so I agree with Martzy on this one. Partly. While, yes, bahavior is governed by the goal of achieving your full potential and being optomistic, in this video, we are shown how incentives work to boost our motivation. Doing my homework for no credit will most likely result in me not doing it. However, if I am told I will get credit, I will at least make up some answers. Furthermore, if I'm told that I'm being graded for accuracy, rather than compeletion, I will put the most time into it. The grade for accuracy is what is motivating me to do something.
(posted by Mr. Gingrich) I agree with Martzy, too. Having read the guys book, that's pretty much his main point---that businesses/business managers still rely on Watson's tactics (carrots and sticks)...and that's out of touch with what REALLY motivates people (which he claims resembles Seligman's theories). Looking at the homework example, I don't think that completing homework falls into any of the categories he talks about in the video, which is why Beitzel's so unmotivated to do it to the very best of her abilities:
1) autonomy--most homework doesn't fit into this category, because the teacher instructs you specifically what to do.
2) mastery--how much does homework really challenge your skills? And how much is rote memorization/repitition?
3) purpose--I think he would argue that there would have to be a higher purpose than just "a good grade."
(posted by Sarah Beitzel) Well yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at (homework is just fresh on my mind every day. It is school, after all)
(posted by Andrew Martz) I just re-read your second point up top Sarah, and I disagree. As you said, 100% is not probable. That means there is always room for improvement. Just something to think about...
(posted by Sarah Beitzel) Yes, but what I'm getting at is that motivation will only work for so long. If I'm staying up until 1 or 2 AM to get problem sets done for Chem (okay, so I'm not up THAT late... but it's getting there)... anyway... uhm.... yeah. If I'm staying up that late and I'm still not getting 100%, the value of that 100% will go down to me, and the fact that I CAN'T seem to reach it will get me down. Now, yeah, I'm not everybody, but I am a mentally stable (well... we [as in my parents and doctors and such... not my multiple personalities] think I am mentally stable...) person. The video even says that the motivation of money only worked for so long.
h
h
h
Completely separated from what Andrew, Gingrich and I have been discussing, is the idea that perhaps motivation will never work. "you'll fail if you don't do your homework," or "You can't go out shopping if you don't clean your room," (assuming the person wants to pass and wants to go shopping, of course) will sometimes not work. If the person, perhaps, is too lazy to take care of the condition (homework/cleaning) then they will not get their reward. Thoughts?
(posted by Mr. Gingrich) This ties in with the assignment that I just sent out to the other students. According to "Switch," what we often think of as a people problem (someone being lazy) is often a situation problem (something about the situation is holding the person back). They argue that people, often aren't being lazy or unmotivated, but that theres something about the situation that is causing them to pursue the status quo.
There are a lot of different ways to change the situation...all of which are covered in the packets that I gave out...but they can include things like having very specific goals, shrinking the change to more managable chunks, or making an environmental change. One of the examples they use is actually the one of a child having to clean his room. If a parent says "go clean your room" to a child, the child will feel overwhelmed, perhaps intimidated by the seemingly daunting task and time commitment, perhaps confused on where to even begin, and resist the order. One solution the authors give is the "five minute rescue." In this case, this would mean setting an alarm for five minutes, and working on cleaning your room. When the buzzer goes off, you can quit. Suddenly, this five-minute time frame seems much more managable, and the child will be more willing to undertake the task. So, I guess in conclusion--these authors would say that motivation will always work, you just need to find the right keys to jumpstart the change.